For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.
Armanatar – ” the Big Bang itself was almost certainly a quantum event, and as such could have no cause, or could have a cause which occurred after itself. “
So,…this period preceding the big bang would be before time, and causality. Those phenomena being things that evolve out of a compounding back upon itself. From the development of relativity.
Would this be a rough approximation for a laypersons purposes?
And, does that timeless/non-relative condition persist? It must I guess, because you are talking about it. We are now able to investigate it. Develop mathematics, tools, and techniques to study the thing.
(From outside looking in? But that wouldn’t actually be feasible; so I must have it wrong.)
“The point is that the universe is inherently non-deterministic, though it behaves deterministically within certain parameters. There are things which cannot be predicted, not merely as a limitation of our ability, but as a limitation of the things themselves.”
Like an artist or musician engaging their process, but only up to the point of the great mystery and genius of creation.
(Spontaneous gratitude. Humble respect. Happiness.)
(Responding to Theodore Seeber)
Theodore Seeber –“You can rename God however you want to.”
Notagod (responding to Sophia Sadek) – “I don’t know of any anti-theist that advocates destroying all copies of any book. That isn’t what anti-theists are about.
Certainly, not all products created by humans are worthy of respect and I guess, contrary to your statement, that you don’t respect all products either. Also, Creators (there are many of them) were created by a collection of humans not the other way around.”
Where did all this come from?
I’m sure you have some answer but why would it be more viable than any myth, metaphor or scriptural explanation.
It satisfies you and that is what matters, but is also all that can be said.
Wick Samuel (responding to Max Doubt) – “Just go ahead and define what you mean, if I encounter any words I don’t understand i’ll look them up.please remember, a response of ‘you’re to stupid to understand’ indicates you don’t want to explicitly state that the evidence you are demanding doesn’t make sense when we’re talking about an immaterial being, you were just throwing out a one liner you thought looked good.”
But thinking of God as “an immaterial being” seems a bit weak.It leaves our experience in the “material” universe unexplained.
Somehow outside of that which has no outside. (or even inside if you want to get right down to it.)